Yesterday we had our weekly cupping session at my local coffee shop. We compared different grinders using comparable settings of the same Guatemalan Bourbon coffee made on a hario V60. We also sifted two coffees, the first a pretty coarse one (leaving only the medium to coarse particles), the second a finer sieve (removing only the dust). We then cupped them blind and the difference was amazing! It was easy to tell the grinders apart, and even the sifted samples from the Ditting 1403 were distinctly different.

I asked the owner to grind a sample for me on their Ditting grinder using their Hario V60 setting. I then went home and made three samples on my Super Jolly. The first at a 0 setting (which is ~2.5 above my espresso setting, the second at a setting of 1 and the last with a setting of 2. They were not the same coffees as you can tell from the presence of chaff in my samples but still...

You can tell with the naked eye that there is a difference, I was not expecting that. Not entirely scientific but it was a fun experiment...

Grind comparison:


Ditting 1403:


Super Jolly at 2.5 above espresso setting:


Super Jolly at 3.5 above espresso setting (it almost looks like a finer grind but it is not):


Super Jolly at 4.5 above espresso setting:

Dieter01 wrote:We compared different grinders using comparable settings of the same Guatemalan Bourbon coffee made on a hario V60. We also sifted two coffees, the first a pretty coarse one (leaving only the medium to coarse particles), the second a finer sieve (removing only the dust). We then cupped them blind and the difference was amazing! It was easy to tell the grinders apart, and even the sifted samples from the Ditting 1403 were distinctly different.

I would like to hear more details. How did the different grinders and different sieves affect the cup?

The sifted samples were all from the Ditting. The first cup was sifted on a fairly fine sieve. From a sample of 20g about 4g were removed. The second cup was a coarser sieve which removed more, I don't remember exactly how much. The last sample (3) was a normal cup.

Comparing them the biggest standout was number 2. It simply tasted underextraced, weak and lacked sweetness and complexity. The other two were closer but sample number 1 was less bitter and more balanced, a really nice cup! It is interesting to note that sample 2 is probably the most uniform, yet it came out worst. Does that suggest having a less uniform grind distribution is desireable? Probably not... I think the optimum grind setting if you only had one very narrow range / grind distribution is smaller than the one in cup 2.

Just before I arrived they had also cupped samples from (I believe) a Versalab M3. At the same grind setting the sieve removed 6 grams of fines here from a 20g sample (compared to 4g on the Ditting). From what I was told the sieved cups from the Ditting and the espresso grinder were not dissimilar. The unsifted cups were different though, with the Versalab showing more bitterness than the Ditting.

I frankly can't see the purpose of examining the performance of an espresso grinder for cupping. It's like evaluating the performance of a skateboard for surfing (or vice versa).

That's not perhaps the greatest analogy and I'm not suggesting there's any inherent superiority in either cupping or espresso, but they are two completely different methods of preparing coffee...

I have a bee in my bonnet about this. If roasters relied less on cupping notes when buying beans we'd find a better choice of SO for espresso on the market in my opinion. Many wholesalers of greens don't even have decent espresso equipment on which a roaster can evaluate. So sometimes a roaster simply has to make the best of a less than ideal choice.... and so do we (if we prefer to mainly or exclusively drink espresso).

Excuse the rant.

Hi Dieter.

Thanks for the pictures and for the great piece of conversation.

The Ditting is a nice grinder for drip. It does need (like when preparing espresso) the correct grind setting to get the best flavor. For example, even cheap-bad beans can make a good cup when the grind setting is coarse enough. But if the setting is fine, you could get over extraction and it would taste worse. Some beans require different grind settings (just like for espresso) and the flavor changes with the different settings.

I think the Mazzer grinders should win when doing espresso cupping and the Ditting grinder should win when doing drip cupping. One is unimodal (drip-F. press) and the other is bimodal (espresso).

Cheers

michaelbenis wrote:I frankly can't see the purpose of examining the performance of an espresso grinder for cupping. It's like evaluating the performance of a skateboard for surfing (or vice versa).

So I've been told but this was my chance to test it myself. You make good points though... But why is it so?

When you look at particle size distribution graphs for a Ditting they have one "hump" and very little fines. Graphs I've seen for espresso grinders have two humps. The two are always made at different grind settings though. If a Ditting was set to grind espresso-fine, would it still produce only one hump? What about an espresso grinder at a drip setting - would it still produce two distinct humps?

I ask because comparing the Ditting 805 / Mahlkonig Tanzania to the Baratza Vario (which I understand was made primarily for espresso?) the Vario does not produce those two humps. It definitely produces more fines, but the second hump disappears when moving to the coarser setting. Engineering or accident?

When Mazzer sells their Major as a bulk grinder (no doser) it is marketed as such, not espresso. I assume it still has the same burrs as the espresso version. Are they clueless to what they are selling? If so, isn't it strange that nobody figured this out?

Since the graphs are shown in a volume distribution, the fines are simply swamped on a graph by the considerably higher volume of large particles. Even though they don't show up on the graph, you may still taste their presence; that is a limit of the technology used to measure particle size. Fines may have a disproportionate (to their volume fraction of the coffee) impact on the cup. Jim S. has also astutely pointed out that fines necessarily increase as a bean is broken more times. Any time you grind finer, more fines will be produced, regardless of burr design. This being said, some burrs may produce a better grind for a different brew method.

If someone plotted the same graphs as a function of surface area we would probably see why the fines contribution is so significant to cup quality.

This is in fact a useful comparison and discussion for home users who are contemplating whether it's practical to use their espresso grinder on occasion for drip coffee as well as using it regularly for espresso. If you're a single dose adherent then the issue of grind adjustment and change back and forth is not much of an issue (it's very easy to change grind settings on a properly maintained Mazzer that has no beans in it.) Of greater interest in this case is the possible qualitative difference in the cup. When I was making drip coffee only a handful of times each year I used my Mazzer SJ or Major or SJ for grinding - assuming that it was not perfect but was "good enough" (and it was - I was making auto-drip in ten cup pots for relatives at holiday gatherings.)

These days I'm making Hario V60 pourovers a few times each week, playing with a vacuum pot and starting to do cupping more regularly as I finally get a roaster in operation. I snagged a used Ditting 804 for this purpose and haven't regretted the investment but I have the budget and counter space to justify this - many people don't.

All good points, Dieter.

I suspect that as far as the Mazzer bulk grinder goes, its intended use was probably for Mokka pots and home espresso machines.